[governance] WG: Concern for the future of civil society re IGF

[Jeremy Malcolm]

On 17/01/2010, at 12:25 AM, Roland Perry wrote:

> In message <4B51CBC7.80206 at itforchange.net>, at 19:53:03 on Sat, 16 Jan
> 2010, Parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> writes
>> Jeremy never said there *was* rough consensus. He only proposed a rough
>> consensus.
> 
> I can see what might be confusing. In his draft statement, Jeremy said:
> 
>        "We thank you for the opportunity to present you with these
>        thoughts, which reflect a "rough consensus" of our several
>        hundred members from civil society, with a wide spread of
>        geographic and gender representation."
> 
> But obviously, until that draft statement is agreed, and becomes a final
> statement, the list hasn't reached that consensus yet.

Roland is of course correct.  But if the statement in its revised form does not meet with your approval, because there is something in there you can't live with or there is something missing that you can't live without, now is the time to post your thoughts.  Otherwise, the coordinators may soon make a consensus call, and by then it will be too late for radical changes.

On that note, thanks McTim and Katitza for your latest contributions. I don't wish to interfere in the discussion of substantive issues, but in case it is helpful, I can't resist just briefly contributing something in reply to Katitza's remark:

> We are working here towards upholding human rights on the Internet. The UN charter commits the United Nations and all Member States to action promoting "universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms" (art. 55 / inc. c)).

The UN does, yes - but this applies mostly to states; UN instruments do not directly bind individuals or companies (with some exceptions, eg. individuals can be tried for war crimes).  However networks of other stakeholders can adopt their own charters of rights that are in a way akin to those of the UN which apply to states: for example, the Global Network Initiative (http://www.globalnetworkinitiative.org/).

Thus if the IGF were to become such a non-UN body, the observance of human rights would not become any less binding on states, nor any more binding on non-states, than under a UN-based IGF.  Really, its UN link makes no difference in that regard.  The main reason for a UN-linked IGF is simply to secure the buy-in of states, which was missing from previous attempts at creating a global Internet policy forum.

-- 
Jeremy Malcolm
Project Coordinator
Consumers International
Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East
Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Tel: +60 3 7726 1599

CI is 50
Consumers International marks 50 years of the global consumer movement in 2010.
Celebrate with us as we continue to support, promote and protect consumer rights around the world. 
http://www.consumersinternational.org/50

Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary.

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t